Kum. Megha Khandelwal, Indore V. The I.T.O., Indore

MA 29/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0423 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.29/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 62/IND/2010) A.Y. 2002-03 KUM. MEGHA KHANDELWAL, 7/4, MAHESH NAGAR, INDORE PAN AKJPK 3330 L APPLICANT VS. ITO-5(3), INDORE RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALLING OF THE EXPARTE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 14.6.2010. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, MR . PRAKASH JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL BY SUBMITTING THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY THE REGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS NOT SERVED UPON T HE ASSESSEE AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS ASSERTION, ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT A LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND ONE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVID ED TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE HER CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI P.K. MITRA, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY CONTENDING THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO 2 REMAIN PRESENT ON THE APPOINTED DATE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS NON-AP PEARANCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.6.2010 IS RECALLED. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE APPEL LANTS/RESPONDENTS AND NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 21.2.2011. THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY COGENT REA SON ON THE NEXT DATE I.E. 21.2.2011. SINCE THE NEXT DATE WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES, TH EREFORE, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 11.2.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11.2.2011 {VYAS} COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE